e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleng

Anaerobic digesters as a pretreatment for constructed wetlands

J.A. Alvarez , I. Ruz, M. Soto
Department of Physical Chemistry and Chemical Engineering I, Campus A Zapateira, 15008, Faculty of Science, University of A Coruna, A Coruna, Spain

a r t i c l e
Article history:

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
The most commonly used pretreatment technologies for constructed wetland (CW) treatment of domestic sewage are septic tanks (ST) and Imhoff tanks (IT). These technologies have frequently suffered from failures and even in normal operation they offer insufcient removal of solids. As a result, combined ST-CW or IT-CW can experience substrate clogging, especially when high organic loads are applied. In the last 7 years, the operation of combined systems using high-rate anaerobic digesters as a pretreatment and CW as a post-treatment has been reported. A review of the literature indicates that CW in these combined sys-

Received 11 June 2007 Received in revised form 25 January 2008 Accepted 17 February 2008

Keywords: Anaerobic digesters Constructed wetlands Municipal wastewater Clogging

tems operates with a similar organic loading rate (on a chemical oxygen demand basis) but with a lower total suspended solid (TSS) loading rate. In these combined systems, the TSS loading rate is 3050% less than that applied in CW combined with classical pretreatment technologies. A low TSS loading rate could prevent substrate clogging in CW. This work presents the results of different case studies on the treatment of municipal wastewater with high-rate anaerobic systems. Our interest is focused on the capacity of these systems for removing suspended solids, and therefore on their potential as an appropriate pretreatment to avoid clogging in constructed wetlands and to improve efciency. Average and 95 percentile TSS concentrations of anaerobic treated wastewater were below 60 and 100 mg/l, respectively, for all congurations. Therefore, the use of high rate anaerobic systems as a pretreatment for constructed wetlands could delay gravel bed clogging. Furthermore, according to the level of organic matter removal, anaerobic pretreatment provided a 3060% reduction in the required wetland area. Both treatment alternatives can be combined to develop low-cost, robust, and long-term systems for treating municipal wastewater. 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

Sustainability of sanitation systems should be related to low cost and low energy consumption and, in some situations, low mechanical technology requirements. Decentralised and low-cost processes are considered to be a better choice for rural areas (Lens et al., 2001). Anaerobic digesters and con-

structed wetlands are treatment systems with a very small energy input, low operational cost, and low surplus sludge generation (Sperling, 1996; Kadlec et al., 2000; Lens et al., 2001; Hoffmann et al., 2002). These characteristics, together with low technological requirements, make them particularly suitable for decentralised wastewater treatment in rural areas.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 981 563100x16016; fax: +34 981528050. E-mail address: alvarezr@usc.es (J.A. Alvarez). 0925-8574/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2008.02.001

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467

55

The costs of construction, installation, and operation of anaerobic digesters are lower than those of conventional aerobic units because anaerobic digesters do not require expensive equipment for process maintenance and control. In fact, if the environmental conditions inside the digester are adequate, anaerobic processes are mainly self-controlled. Additionally, the production of excess sludge is minimal, and energy balances are quite favourable, even when heating is required, due to the production of methane (Foresti, 2002). The disadvantage of anaerobic digesters is that additional treatment is necessary to polish and lower the pollution load. Even in tropical regions (Sousa et al., 2001), and mainly in cool to temperate climate regions (Alvarez et al., 2003), the efuent of UASB (up ow anaerobic sludge blanket) systems requires an efuent post-treatment to reduce organic mater, nutrients, and pathogenic microorganisms. In the case of operating temperatures below 20 C, UASB systems are good at removing suspended solids; however, acetic acid accumulation in the efuent reduces the COD (chemical oxygen demand) and BOD (biological oxygen demand) removal efciencies (Alvarez, 2004; Alvarez et al., 2006). It is of great interest to combine wetland systems with anaerobic digesters in order to obtain sufcient treatment efciency. The most commonly used anaerobic technology for municipal wastewater treatment is the UASB (Lettinga, 2001; Foresti et al., 2006; Van Haandel et al., 2006). There are several studies of systems combining anaerobic pretreatment and constructed wetlands, which are assessed in Section 4. UASB reactors are the referent pretreatment anaerobic technology used in these combined systems. However, other anaerobic technologies may be used as sewage pretreatment for constructed wetlands. The hydrolytic upow sludge bed reactor (HUSB) is a promising alternative. However, constructed wetlands (CW) are land-intensive treatment systems. The use of an appropriate anaerobic pretreatment before constructed wetland treatment can reduce the construction cost by about 3640%, due to the fact that anaerobic treatment reduces the inuent organic matter and therefore the area required for CW is decreased (Barros and Soto, 2002). Both anaerobic and wetland treatment approaches are characterized by low construction and operation costs, low excess sludge, and low energy demand. Therefore, both treatment technologies are complementary and highly sustainable. Limited organic removal efciency in anaerobic digesters is compensated by high efciency in CW, while anaerobic digesters present minimal area requirements, generally less than 0.1 m2 /p.e. for UASB (Kivaisi, 2001). Studies have shown that one of the most important operational handicaps of constructed wetlands is gravel bed clogging; this may occur after several years, resulting from the treatment of raw or poorly pretreated urban wastewater. Suspended solids that are not removed in a pretreatment system are effectively removed by ltration and settlement within the rst few metres beyond the inlet zone. Thus, a high level of total suspended solid (TSS) removal in anaerobic pretreatment would contribute to avoiding or reducing wetland clogging problems, reinforcing constructed wetland sustainability (Vymazal, 2005; Caselles-Osorio et al., 2007). The aim of this work is to analyse and discuss the potential of high-rate anaerobic digesters as a pretreatment for

municipal wastewater that will later be treated in constructed wetlands. First, a brief analysis of clogging phenomena in CW is presented, and the pretreatment technologies most often used in combination with CW are discussed, focusing on their potential for reducing the quantity of suspended solids introduced into constructed wetlands. Next, the authors review the literature on systems combining anaerobic digesters and CW. Finally, detailed case studies on anaerobic pretreatment of municipal wastewater are presented, focusing on the efciency of suspended solid removal and the potential of anaerobic digesters for preventing clogging and reducing CW area.

2. Substrate clogging in constructed wetlands

Substrate clogging encompasses several processes that lead to a reduction of the inltration capacity of the gravel bed after several years of operation. In horizontal ow (HF) wetlands, apparent clogging and subsequent ponding near the inlet of the treatment cells dampen the remarkable performance of the system. This may occur after few years of operation (Dahab and Surampalli, 2001; Caselles-Osorio et al., 2007). In vertical ow (VF) wetlands, clogging of the substrate matrix critically hinders the oxygen transport and therefore results in an extremely rapid failure of the systems ability to treat wastewater (Langergraber et al., 2003). The main parameters that inuence the substrate clogging process are the organic load and the suspended solid load. Besides these main factors, the clogging risk is also controlled by gravel size, since large gravel prevents or delays clogging phenomena (Chazarenc and Merlin, 2005; Zhao et al., 2004). Organic load is an indirect parameter leading to sludge production derived from bacterial growth. Both inuent sludge and sludge generated in situ will accumulate in the gravel bed. Literature values for the maximal acceptable organic load fall within a wide range. For example, Winter and Goetz (2003) indicated the area of VF constructed wetlands should be designed for a maximum loading rate of 20 gCOD/m2 d to avoid the clogging process. So, the clogging risk becomes a limitation of wetland performance. On the other hand, one of the major parameters inuencing clogging is the suspended solid load (Batchelor and Loots, 1997; Dahab and Surampalli, 2001; Winter and Goetz, 2003; Langergraber et al., 2003). Little information is available concerning the maximum acceptable TSS loading rates. Values given are only valid for one special type of substrate and cannot be used as a general guideline. For example, Dahab and Surampalli (2001) found clogging in a subsurface horizontal ow constructed wetland system after 3.5 years of treating wastewater with a load of 1.44 gTSS/m2 d. Winter and Goetz (2003) showed that in order to avoid clogging processes in a vertically constructed wetland, the average concentration of TSS in the inow should not exceed 100 mg/l, while the suspended solid load should not exceed 5 gTSS/m2 d. These authors thought that growth of biomass has only a minor effect on clogging compared to the accumulation of inuent TSS. Green et al. (2006) compared two types of pretreatments: a UASB system and a primary decanter. They indicated that

56

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467

by using UASB efuent as feeding water for a VF CW a higher removal rate could be achieved than by using primary decanter efuent, as a consequence of the relatively low TSS loading rate resulting from the higher removal of TSS in the UASB. These authors found that the total TSS removed in each active cycle (until clogging occurred) was similar for the VF CW that received either pre-settled domestic wastewater or UASB efuent, while the total COD removed was about three times higher for the VF CW receiving UASB efuent. Therefore, it seems that the TSS loading rate was the most inuential parameter affecting the rate of bed clogging in VF CW (Green et al., 2006). Caselles-Osorio and Garcia (2007) compared the physicochemical pretreatment and primary settling for constructed wetlands. Physico-chemical pretreatment reduced the COD to 48% and turbidity to 17% that of primary settled wastewater. After 8 months of operation at similar hydraulic loading rates, it was observed that the hydraulic conductivity decreased by 20% in the subsurface ow (SSF) CW fed with settled wastewater. The authors estimated that the physico-chemical pretreatment extended the lifespan of the constructed wetland by approximately 10 years, compared to a primary decanter pretreatment. The effect of the inuent type (dissolved glucose or particulate starch) on the efciency of SSF CW was reported by Caselles-Osorio and Garca (2006). The type of organic mat ter did not appear to inuence the COD removal efciency. However, ammonia nitrogen removal was higher in the system fed with glucose than in the one fed with starch. Hydraulic conductivity was lower near the inlet of the SSF CW fed with glucose, despite the possible retention and accumulation of starch particles near the inlet of the other SSF CW. The authors hypothesized the growth and development of biolm was greater in the system fed with glucose than in the system fed with starch, since glucose is a readily biodegradable carbon source. Therefore, the biolm growth could be an important parameter in the evaluation of clogging phenomena, as these authors indicated. It is generally accepted that the application of a good wastewater pretreatment is essential for sustainable, longterm operation of subsurface ow constructed wetlands (Vymazal et al., 1998; USEPA, 2000; Vymazal, 2002; CasellesOsorio et al., 2007). On the other hand, although VF CW can directly treat raw domestic wastewater (Chazarenc and Merlin, 2005), several authors also recommended wastewater pretreatment (Winter and Goetz, 2003; Langergraber et al., 2003; Green et al., 2006).

3. Pretreatment alternatives for constructed wetlands

The main objective of pretreatment or primary treatment is the reduction of suspended solids in wastewater, although additional treatment effects leading to organic content reduction and, in some cases, the hydrolysis and stabilization of the generated sludge are obtained. In this way, some pretreatment technologies can reach up to 50% COD or BOD removal. Furthermore, from a general point of view, pretreament operations are considered to be a convenient means of ensuring the correct operation of subsequent treatment steps in both con-

ventional and natural low cost treatment approaches (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). However, information about the operation and efciency of pretreatment systems combined with CW is scarce. Even in many scientic reports, the TSS concentration entering the CW system is not available, in contrast to the frequent statement that the inuent concentration and loading rate of TSS are the main factors that inuence clogging. Classical sewage pretreatment technologies include a septic tank and Imhoff tank for small-scale installations. These systems can achieve a TSS removal of 5070%, generating primary efuent concentrations in the range of 5090 mgTSS/l when they are operated well (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). Furthermore, septic and Imhoff tanks stabilize the sludge by anaerobic digestion, reducing the amount of sludge generated. Another classical pretreatment alternative, which is used mainly for larger installations, is the primary decanter. Primary decanters offer similar TSS removal of 5070%, but the high amount of primary sludge produced is their largest handicap (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). Physico-chemical treatment (coagulation and occulation followed by clarication) is an advanced pretreatment for domestic sewage, reaching up to 90% TSS removal and 80% COD (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). However, physico-chemical pretreatment also has certain requirements that can make this process unsuitable in the context of constructed wetlands technology; these include the cost of the coagulants, energy for adding and mixing coagulants, and increased sludge handling (Caselles-Osorio and Garcia, 2007). Until now, the most common wastewater pretreatments for CW have been the septic tank (ST) or the Imhoff tank (IT). When properly operated, ST and IT offer good pretreatment levels, reaching low TSS concentrations (Neralla et al., 2000; Vymazal, 2002). However, ST and IT frequently suffer from failures that decreased the treatment efciency (Philippi et al., 1999; Mbuligwe, 2004; Caselles-Osorio et al., 2007). A recent survey indicates that 86% of the constructed wetland plants in operation in Spain use a septic tank or Imhoff tank for pretreatment (Puigagut et al., 2007). This was observed in spite of the fact that the majority of these CW were built within the last 5 or 6 years. A report of recently built CW systems in Italy also indicated the use of Imhoff tanks (Masi et al., 2006). The situation is similar in most countries where CW systems are being used. In the case of the Czech Republic, pretreatment for a small system usually consists of a septic or settling tank, while pretreatment for larger systems usually consists of an Imhoff tank (Vymazal, 2002). Settling tanks are used also in Flanders (Rousseau et al., 2004a) and Denmark (Brix and Arias, 2005). A summary of data on wastewater pretreatment for constructed wetlands is presented in Table 1. The average primary treatment efuent concentration of SS in Czech Republic CW systems is 65 mg/l, while the average mass-loading rate is 3.6 gTSS/m2 d (Vymazal, 2002; n = 42). Data for Denmark and the UK (n = 77), North America (n = 34), and Poland (n = 6), and the Czech Republic, indicate that the average inuent concentration to CW after pretreatment ranges from 48 to 173 mgTSS/l and average loading rates range from 3.6 to 5.2 gTSS/m2 d (Vymazal, 2002). Vymazal (2005) reported worldwide gures for CW, indicating an average inuent TSS

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467

57

Table 1 Efuent concentration and efciency of TSS removal for domestic sewage pretreatment systems combined with CW N
Septic and Imhoff tanks Primary sedimentation (to VF CW) Septic tank (to SSF CW) Septic tank (to VF CW, single-house) Septic tank (to SSF CW) Settling pond (to FWS CW) Settling tank (to VF CW) Settling tank (to HF CW) Septic tank or Imhoff Tank (to SSF CW) Septic tank or Imhoff Tank (to SSF CW) Imhoff Tank (to SSF CW) Imhoff Tank (to HF or VF CW) Range (Average) High-rate anaerobic digesters UASB (to VF CW) UASB (to SSF and FWS CW) UASB (to SSF CW) UASB (to SSF CW) UASB (to SSF CW) Range (Average)
a b

TSS (mg/l)
240416 26114 85124 90517 (261)a 5200 (25)b 131000 (80)b 10400 (47)b 173 65 146 2676 261000 (123)

TSSr (%)

Reference
Green et al. (2006) Neralla et al. (2000) Brix and Arias (2005) Caselles-Osorio et al. (2007) Rousseau et al. (2004a) Rousseau et al. (2004a) Rousseau et al. (2004a) Puigagut et al. (2007) Vymazal (2002) Caselles-Osorio et al. (2007) Masi et al. (2006)

1 8 3 4 12 7 2 3 42 1 3

35.2

73.0

1 1 1 1 1

124 59 189 3442 3874 (52)a 34189 (92)

52 66.5 8291 4978 (65)a 5291 (68)

Green et al. (2006) El-Khateeb and El-Gohary (2003) El-Hamouri et al. (2007) Barros et al. (2006) Ruz et al. (2006)

Range followed by the average. N is the number of studies included. Range followed by 50% percentile.

concentration of 107 mg/l and an average TSS loading rate of 5.4 g/m2 d. For Spanish CW-based treatment systems, TSS loading rates range from 3 to 17 gTSS/m2 d (n = 6), and the average primary treatment efuent concentration is 173 mg/l (n = 3) (Puigagut et al., 2007). These authors highlight the scarcity of data about TSS loading rates and inuent concentrations, as they surveyed a total of 39 SSF systems but only found information on TSS for a few of these systems. Also in Spain, recent research conducted on several Catalonian SSF CW systems (Caselles-Osorio et al., 2007) reports primary efuent from septic tanks and Imhoff tanks containing 90517 mgSS-COD/l (average and standard deviation of 238 172 mgSS-COD/l; n = 5). These SS-COD values indicate higher TSS concentrations. The authors indicated that in some cases, septic tanks used as pretreatment systems were not working properly. Estimated TSS loading rates for Catalonian SSF CW systems (Caselles-Osorio et al., 2007) are in the range of 2.610 gTSS/m2 d, and are higher than the ranges indicated above for other countries. As indicated, high-rate anaerobic digesters have become an alternative for sewage treatment in regions with a warm climate. As a consequence, in recent years CW systems have been applied in some occasions as a post-treatment process for anaerobically pretreated sewage. Section 4 deals the operation of CW treating anaerobic efuents, while Table 1 summarizes available data about TSS in UASB efuents fed to CW systems. Data from Table 1 indicate a somewhat low TSS concentration in UASB efuents when compared to septic and Imhoff tank efuents. However, it is not possible to make a denitive comparison due to the scarcity of data for UASB-CW combined systems. A general review of high-rate anaerobic digesters treating municipal wastewater (Alvarez et al., in preparation) indi-

cated that UASB removes about 73% of inuent TSS (average inuent TSS of 241 mg/l, efuent TSS of 65 mg/l, n = 127 lab and eld applications, temperature of 21.6 C, HRT (hydraulic retention time) of 8.5 h. However, mean values for performance of eld-only applications of UASB were lower (inuent TSS of 301 mg/l, efuent TSS of 102 mg/l, n = 22, temperature of 23.8 C, HRT of 6.9 h). This could be due to the fact that UASB eld applications mainly correspond to tropical countries where wastewater concentration is high. Furthermore, higher temperatures in these countries lead to higher biogas production that in turn increases sludge washout. However, UASB offers an advanced wastewater pretreatment, which reaches about 62% COD removal and 68% BOD removal, levels that are maintained in eld applications. In addition, UASB systems generate very small amounts of sludge and applied HRTs are lower than those of some primary treatments such as septic tank or ponds. Different congurations of anaerobic digesters had been studied in order to treat municipal wastewater in both cold and warm regions. In Section 5, some of these congurations are analysed, with special attention given to the solid removal capability of anaerobic systems.

4. CW post-treatment of anaerobically treated sewage

Table 2 shows the main design and operating characteristics of various constructed wetlands for UASB-CW combined systems found in the literature. A dozen UASB-CW applications were described, although there is only information about inuent TSS for a few systems, as can be seen by comparing Tables 2 and 1. In addition, the operational period reported in these studies is not long enough (the maximum

58

Table 2 Operation of constructed wetlands using anaerobic technology as a pretreatment Ref.a Systemb Plant TRH (d)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Arundo donax 15 16
a

OLR (g/m2 d) (in CW sub-units system) COD

6.6 9.5 5.513.5 5.513.5 12.3 14.5 779.0 73.7 7.7 16.5 74.6

CW system efciency (%, except FC: Log units) TP COD

82.9 81.3 81.6 81.7 76.7 78.0 69.7 5661 7580 82.2 82.2 7283 70.5 7982 71.4 37.5

TSS
1.43.3 1.43.3 183.0 17.3 1.7 5.0 21.4

BOD
1.74.7 1.74.7 333.9 31.6 5.2 10.2 21.4

N-NH4
0.71.8 0.71.8 2.4 3.9 1.2 3.7

TN
1.32 1.89 2.64 2.0 2.0 1.33.1 1.33.1 2.3 7882 4.5 9.0

TSS
65.0 56.2 48.0 70.3 66.0 79.7 55.9 91.3 91.3 3252 77.3 89 86.1 46.1

BOD
77.8 79.8 95.1 95.1 7887 73 811

N-NH4
70.0 44.8 45.1 27.3 51.5 2327 7475 38 15.0 95.8 55.2

TN
70.3 47.4 48.0 69.3 44.3 27.3 41.8 32 1.0 90.4 56.6

TP FC
89.0 64.2 61.1 50.0 47.3 38.2 29.4 6975 26 3.4 3.9 4.5 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.3 0.6 2.1

UASB + SSF UASB + SSF UASB + SSF UASB + SSF UASB + SSF UASB + SSF UASB + SF UASB + SSF UASB + SSF UASB + VF(3x) UASB + VF(2) + SSF UASB(2) + SSF + SF UASB + FSF + SF UASB(2) + SSF 0.54 AT + SSF AT + SSF

Juncus spp. Juncus spp. Juncus spp. Juncus spp. Juncus spp. T. latifolia T. latifolia Ph. Mauritianus T. latifolia T. Latifolia Colocasia esculenta Ph. australis Ph. australis Juncus spp. Juncus spp. Ph. Australis 130.1 Z.b. and T.sc Z.b. and T.sc

5 7 10 10 7 5 10.8 1.9 1.2 0.6 0.4 + 1.6 5.0 2.4 64.1 1.5 0.75

0.16 0.23 0.32 0.17 0.25 0.080.19 0.080.19 0.75 0.2 7980 1.0 2.0

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467

93.3 20.9

100% 89.7%

References: (1,2,3) Sousa et al. (2001), (4,5) Sousa et al. (2003), (6,7) El-Khateeb and El-Gohary (2003), (8) Kaseva (2004), (9) Mbuligwe (2004), (10,11) Green et al. (2006), (12) Barros et al. (2006), (13) Ruz et al. (2006), (14) El-Hamouri et al. (2007), (15,16) Da Motta Marques et al., 2001. System description: UASB (Upow Anaerobic Sludge Bed), SSF (Horizontal Subsurface ow constructed wetland), VF (Vertical ow constructed wetland), SF (Horizontal Surface ow constructed wetland), and AT (Anaerobic treatment not specied). Referred units were connected in series, the number in parentheses indicates several units of the same type in the series. Zizaniopsis bonariensis and Typha subalata.

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467

59

Table 3 Comparison of the loading rate and efciency for CW treatment of efuents from UASB and from classical pretreatment technologies BOD5
Worldwide experiment SSFa Loading rate (g/m2 d) Efciency (%) UASB-SSF combined systemsb Loading rate (g/m2 d) Efciency (%)
a b

COD
12.0 71

TSS
5.4 78

TP
0.39 32

TN
1.76 39

NH4 + -N
1.06 34

3.9 81

5.5 78

10.8 73

2.9 63

0.49 54

3.01 53

2.02 53

Vymazal (2005), n = 66131. This review: mean values obtained from data in Table 2, except for experiments 10, 11, and 14 (n = 413).

operation period was 3 years) to conclude whether anaerobic pretreatment can prevent gravel bed clogging. Furthermore, information about solid accumulation or hydraulic conductivity evolution in constructed wetlands combined with UASB is not included in referred bibliography. In general, the performance of the systems is satisfactory with high removal efciencies for organic matter, suspended solids, nutrients and pathogens, reaching mean values (S.D.) of 74 (12)% COD, 68 (17)% TSS, 83 (9)% BOD, 49 (22)% TN (total nitrogen), 51 (26)% TP (total phosphorous), and 94 (13)% FC (data obtained from Table 2). These efciency values are close to those found in the literature (Vymazal, 2002; Rousseau et al., 2004a; Puigagut et al., 2007) for SSF CW treating primary settled efuents. Planted beds generally perform better than unplanted ones (El-Khateeb and El-Gohary, 2003; Sousa et al., 2003; Mbuligwe, 2004; Kaseva, 2004; El-Hamouri et al., 2007). Da Motta Marques et al. (2001) found that plants improve constructed wetland efciency only under high loading rates. No signicant differences in efciency between macrophyte species were found in UASB-CW systems treating domestic sewage, except in some restricted cases. The organic load rate for horizontal ow constructed wetlands varies from 5 to 20 (mean value of 11.4) gCOD/m2 d and from 1.4 to 3.3 (mean value of 3.0) gTSS/m2 d, when the study from El-Hamouri et al. (2007) is excluded. In general, organic loading rates on a COD basis are similar to those reported for SSF CW operating in several European countries while loading rates of suspended solids are lower. As indicated, Vymazal (2002) reported organic loading rates in the range of 8.612.7 gCOD/m2 d for the Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland, and Slovenia, and TSS loading rates in the range of 3.65.2 gTSS/m2 d for the Czech Republic, Denmark, UK, North America, and Poland. Vymazal (2005) reported worldwide data, including data from Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, the USA, and the UK. Table 3 compares mean worldwide values reported by Vymazal (2005) and mean values obtained from studies included in Table 2 to UASB-SSF (or SF) combined systems. Although the number of examples for UASB-SSF combined systems is scarce, results suggest similar organic loading rates and lower TSS loading rates for CW combined with UASB pretreatment. So, UASB reactors reduce the suspended solid loading rate from 30 to 50% compared to classical pretreatment technologies. COD removal efciency is similar while TSS removal efciency is lower. Nutrient loading rates (TP,

TN, and NH4 + -N) are higher for CW in UASB-SSF combined systems, which generally also have higher nutrient removal efciencies. This behaviour is in accordance with the fact that UASB efciently removes organic mater and suspended solids, but UASB is primarily a nutrient conservative process. Therefore, in UASB-SSF combined systems, CW will have a lower TSS inuent concentration but a higher nutrient concentration. The removal of faecal coliforms has a range of 14 log units and is clearly inuenced by the HRT applied. El-Hamouri et al. (2007) reported higher loading rates of 131 gCOD/m2 d and 64 gTSS/m2 d for a SSF CW fed with the efuent from a two-step UASB system. The SSF used by El-Hamouri et al. (2007) had a high depth (0.8 m) and the system reached low nutrients removal, indicating only secondary treatment objectives. Furthermore, the reported period of operation was short (6 months) and there is no information on the sustainability of this highly loaded SSF CW. Even higher organic loading rate values were reached when UASB efuents were treated in VF CW or in combined systems that included VF CW units (Green et al., 2006). A system including a UASB followed by two VF CWs and one SSF CW reached a high secondary treatment efciency that had a small footprint, equivalent to 0.9 m2 per person. An even lower footprint of 0.13 m2 per person equivalent was achieved for a scheme that included a UASB followed by three VF CWs (Green et al., 2006).

5. Anaerobic congurations as CW pretreatment: case studies

5.1. Anaerobic digestion processes and up ow anaerobic digesters
The UASB reactor is the most commonly used anaerobic technology for domestic sewage treatment; and the hydrolytic upow sludge bed (HUSB) is an option to be considered. These digesters have similar design features, but are primarily differentiated by their operational conditions. Both UASB and HUSB can be operated as a single unit or as a combined two-step or hybrid system (see Fig. 1). In upow mode reactors like the HUSB and UASB, raw or pretreated wastewater enters the bottom of the digester and goes up until it reaches the solidliquidgas (SLG) separator, if it exists, and nally reaches the exit level. Sedimentation, ltration, and absorption processes enable suspended solids

60

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467

Fig. 1 Schematic representation of anaerobic systems used for laboratory, pilot, and eld scale applications (note that Table 4 indicates which of these congurations are tested at lab, pilot, or full scale experiments). Abbreviations: UASB, Upow Anaerobic Sludge Bed; HUSB, Hydrolytic Upow Sludge Bed; CMSS, Completely Mixed Sludge Stabilization digester; I, Inuent; E, Efuent; G, Biogas; S, Sludge.

to be retained inside the digester, resulting in the sludge bed. Because of this, suspended solids and absorbable organic matter contained in wastewater have a longer solid retention time (SRT) than the liquid fraction (HRT), allowing particulate matter to be totally or partially biodegraded. In properly designed systems, the pass of the inuent through the sludge in up ow digesters improves contact between organic substrates and biomass, enhancing digester performance. Depending on operational conditions, the sludge held in the digester can reach the SLG separator and, eventually, the exit level. In order to avoid the presence of great amounts of suspended solids in the digester efuent, purges must be periodically practiced from a point slightly below the SLG separator or at an equivalent point. The frequency of this purge is highly variable, from once a week in the case of high load HUSB systems to a yearly purge or no purge in the case of low load UASB methanogenic systems. In the case of HUSB systems, additional purges may be necessary in order to maintain the SRT at an appropriate value, as indicated below. The anaerobic degradation process takes place in two main sequential phases. Particulate organic and soluble polymers should rst be hydrolysed and subsequently acidied to volatile fatty acids (known as acidogenic phase, or hydrolyticacidogenic phase). The process can continue through acetic acid generation from other volatile fatty acids and through methane generation from acetic acid and hydrogen (known as the methanogenic phase). The overall process for the anaerobic digestion of complex substrates may be performed either in a single unit system (only one digester, single-step system) or in two separated units (two digesters connected in series, two-step system). In two-step systems, the rst step mainly deals with the substrate hydrolysis and acidication and the second step involves the acetogenic and methanogenic process. However, many two-step systems respond to a partial phase separation, showing the presence

of methanogenic activity in the rst step and hydrolysis in the second step. On the other hand, the anaerobic process may be stopped in the rst phase as a function of environmental and operational conditions. In this case, the one-step system will be called an anaerobic hydrolytic pretreatment. The well-known UASB system is the most commonly used design for anaerobic methanogenic treatment of domestic sewage. A digester design similar to the UASB, when used under hydrolytic (nonmethanogenic) conditions, is known as a HUSB reactor. The type of substrate, inuent concentration, temperature, HRT, and SRT are the main operational parameters that dene the methanogenic or nonmethanogenic conditions. Domestic sewage is a complex substrate with only a small fraction of readily degradable matter in anaerobic conditions, making hydrolysis the limiting step of the overall process in many cases. Inuent concentration and the applied HRT determine the maximum achievable SRT, although the actual SRT may be reduced through a sludge purge (Alvarez et al., 2006). Lower inuent concentration and lower HRT lead to a lower SRT. Temperature determines the minimum required SRT for methanogenic conditions. Methanogenic digesters operating at 1320 C need a minimum SRT of 80 and 50 d (Henze et al., 1995). In this way, Zeeman and Lettinga (1999) postulated that a SRT higher than 75 d would be required for a UASB treating municipal wastewater at 15 C. With dilute or very dilute sewage, the maximum achievable SRT of an UASB may be equal to or below the minimum SRT required for methanogenesis. In this case, the methanogenic processes is partial and volatile fatty acids (mainly acetic acid) accumulate in the efuent of the digester. In any case, the SRT may be reduced through a sludge purge to reduce methanogenesis and to reach predominantly hydrolyticacidogenic conditions. In practice, hydrolytic conditions are established by applying a low HRT and practicing an additional sludge

Table 4 Summary of the results obtained in anaerobic systems for municipal wastewater treatment Expa Systema Volume (l) Days (samples)b T ( C) HRT (h) SRT (d) Vup (m/h) XR (gVSS/l) Efuent pH Inuent (mg/l)c COD
Single-step HUSB systems (hydrolytic pretreatment) 1 HUSBlab 2 524 (147) 2 HUSBpilot run 1 25500 53 (23) 3 HUSBpilot run 2 25500 495 (250) Single-step UASB systems (anaerobic treatment) 4 UASBlab 2 5 UASBpilot run 1 25500 6 UASBpilot run 2 25500 7 UASBpilot run 3 25500 8 UASB (eld) 3600 UASB-CMSS systems (anaerobic treatment) 9 UASB-CMSS lab 21.6 10 UASB-CMSS pilot 2550020000 Two-step systems (anaerobic treatment) 11 HUSB + UASB pilot run 1 25500 + 20000 12 HUSB + UASB pilot run 2 25500 + 20000 13 UASB + UASB (eld) 3600 + 3600
a

Removal (%)d COD

3347 4659 2944

TSS
220 (110312) 294 (111605) 173 (19438)

TSS
5568 8285 4476

20 1920 1320

2.24.5 35 35

1429 11.4 22.4

0.11 1.43 1.30

1015 6.7 11.1

7.38 7.26 7.14

624 (255806) 438 (291594) 282 (53565)

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467

155 (42) 69 (34) 54 (28) 70 (34) 325 (32)

20 1415 14 2021 518

516 1011 11 4.75.6 17

33215 88 57 38 4692

0.04 0.49 0.48 1.02 0.19

9.2 11.4 4.2 10.7 36

7.00 7.15 6.98 7.15 7.10

685 (276926) 282 (118451) 169 (34300) 339 (227480) 1354 (802700)

214 (116336) 187 (93418) 107 (44173) 207 (92430) 799 (502100)

5376 5458 3545 4749 5893

6385 7685 5065 8182 8296

95 (42) 80 (41)

20 1516

67 69 35 + 714e 34 + 69e 24 + 24e

3375 82.5 2883e 2171e 387

0.06 0.70 1.260.50e 1.270.52e 0.120.12e

14.8 8.45.9 11.78.3e 12.68.5e 4.46.5e

6.83 7.27

644 (220967) 321 (182451)

237 (152424) 175 (112252)

7181 4653

7788 6379

97 (42) 60 (35) 252 (29)

1421 1620 718

7.14 7.21 7.24

251 (70540) 367 (213565) 352 (200800)

166 (49359) 202 (99361) 354 (50400)

4965 5965 4565

8189 8689 7590

b c d e

For system description, see also Fig. 1. Experiments: (1) Ligero et al. (2001a); (2) Alvarez et al. (2003); (3) Alvarez (2004); (4) Ruz et al. (1998); (5, 6, 7) Alvarez et al. (2006); (8) Barros and Soto (2002); (9) Ruz et al. (1998); (10) Alvarez et al. (2004); (11) Alvarez et al. (2007); (12) Alvarez (2004); (13) Barros and Soto (2004). Reported operation period in days, the number of samples analysed is in parentheses. The average is followed by the minimum and maximum values in parentheses. Removal range obtained from average removal values that corresponded to periods of different operation conditions. Values corresponding to the rst and second step units (in two-step systems), respectively.

61

62

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467

purge if necessary. In this way, a lower HRT and a lower SRT differentiate HUSB from UASB systems.

5.2.

Description of surveyed anaerobic systems

Fig. 1 shows the different anaerobic digester congurations analysed in this section, which include laboratory, pilotand eld-scale applications of anaerobic digesters, single and two-step systems, and hydrolytic and methanogenic operation conditions. All applications were carried out in Galiza, in northwest Spain. Attention has been paid to the removal efciency and efuent concentration of suspended solids. The main characteristics of these systems are described below, while a detailed explanation is available in the references indicated. All water line digesters, i.e., all digesters used except the Completely Mixed Sludge Stabilization (CMSS) digester, operated in an upow mode. A 2 l active volume digester was operated on a laboratory scale UASB at a HRT of 516 h (Ruz et al., 1998). In a second study, the UASB reactor was operated in combination with a 1.6 l active volume CMSS digester (Ruz et al., 1998). The CMSS digester was fed with sludge drawn from UASB and an equal volume of the CMSS digester content was returned to the bottom of the UASB. The CMSS digester was mechanically stirred and in a thermostat-controlled bath that was 35 C. Finally, the same digester was operated as a HUSB at a HRT of 2.24.5 h (Ligero et al., 2001a,b). In this case, the digester was equipped with an internal recirculation system. These laboratory digesters were fed with raw domestic wastewater collected from the main sewer of the city of A Coruna (Ruz et al., 2007). An anaerobic pilot plant was located at the municipal wastewater treatment facility of Santiago de Compostela, and it was fed with raw domestic wastewater from this city. This plant had a 25.5 m3 active volume and it could treat municipal wastewater from a population of about 200300 inhabitants when operated in methanogenic conditions or about 500800 inhabitants when operated as a hydrolytic pretreatment. This pilot plant was successively operated as methanogenic UASB system (runs 1, 2, and 3) at a HRT from 5 to 11 h (Alvarez et al., 2006), and as a hydrolytic HUSB reactor at a HRT of 35 h (Alvarez et al., 2003). In another study, this UASB was coupled with a CMSS digester that had 20 m3 of active volume. This system is named as the UASB-CMSS pilot plant. In this conguration, the UASB was operated at a HRT of 69 h and the CMSS digester at a HRT of 1627 d and 3035 C (Alvarez et al., 2004). The overall HRT was in the range of 10.716.1 h. A two-step pilot plant was also studied (Alvarez et al., 2007), and consisted of a hydrolyticacidogenic reactor (HUSB, 25.5 m3 ) followed by a methanogenic unit (UASB, 20 m3 ). Both digesters had a similar design, and were differentiated by their operating conditions. The HRT ranged from 3 to 5 h for HUSB and from 6 to 14 h for UASB. A eld application of the anaerobic digester was carried out in order to treat domestic wastewater from a small community of about 30 inhabitants (Beariz, Ourense). The operation of a single-step UASB with 3.6 m3 of active volume was checked (Barros and Soto, 2002). In a second study, a two-step sys-

tem (Barros and Soto, 2004) consisting of two UASB, each with 3.6 m3 of active volume was used. These digesters did not have a solidliquidgas separator. Analytical methods were carried out according to Standard methods (1995), as previously detailed (Ruz et al., 1998; Alvarez et al., 2006). Sampling frequency of inuent and efuent varied from once a week for eld scale applications to four or ve times a week for pilot and lab scale digesters. The monitoring period varied from 53 to 495 days depending on the system considered.

5.3.

Operation and efciency of anaerobic systems

Table 4 summarises the results of the different anaerobic systems studied, and includes the main design and operation variables such as the HRT, SRT, upow velocity, and biomass concentration. The operation and efciency of these systems has been described in detail elsewhere (see references in Table 4). Upow velocity of the different systems surveyed is determined by design characteristics, digester size, and HRT applied. Design characteristics and HRT combined with wastewater characteristics also determined the SRT and the biomass concentration (XR ) obtained. However, in some operation periods of examples 3 and 12, the SRT of the HUSB system was intentionally reduced via an additional sludge purge. As indicated in Table 4, SRT was highly variable, while the biomass concentration was generally between 8 and 15 gVSS/l (volatile suspended solids). Lower biomass concentrations were registered in some cases, either when very dilute wastewater was treated (experiment 6) or in very low-load digesters (experiments 8 and 13). In this paper, we carried out a comparative study of different systems focusing on the TSS removal efciency and efuent quality. As indicated above, this aspect is of great importance in preventing clogging phenomena in posttreatment wetlands. For this purpose, original data on the inuent and efuent were used. Attention is also focused on other design and operation variables like COD removal efciency, efuent pH, biomass activity, and surplus sludge generation. Other parameters, like alkalinity, pathogens, fat, and oil were not measured in most of the research described. Pathogen removal has scarcely been considered in anaerobic digesters treating municipal wastewater, and generally this aspect is not considered in monitoring anaerobic digesters, although helminthic eggs were reported to be completely eliminated in UASB (Lettinga et al., 1993). In a combined UASB-CW system treating the efuent from a small rural community, anaerobic digesters removed less than 0.5 log units of faecal coliforms, while the overall system removed about 2.0 log units.

5.3.1.

Single-step HUSB systems

The anaerobic hydrolysis of wastewater is a promising pretreatment with the following advantages (Wang, 1994; Goncalves et al., 1994; Ligero et al., 2001a,b): (a) it removes an high percentage of SS; (b) it totally or partially stabilises the sludge; and (c) it increases the biodegradability of the remaining COD. The latter advantage favours the subsequent biological elimination of nutrients (N, P).

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467

63

In laboratory-scale experiments with the HUSB, optimum results were obtained at a HRT of 2.3 h (see experiment 1 in Table 4). Over 60% of inuent SS were retained in the digester and hydrolysed. On the other hand, a pilot plant-scale HUSB reactor treating diluted wastewater at 20 C removed more than 82% of TSS (experiment 2). Most of the solids removed (above 81%) were eliminated by hydrolysis. In contrast, at lower temperatures (1315 C), the TSS retention and hydrolysis decreased (experiment 3). Furthermore, the HUSB digester removed COD in an extension that varied from 30 to 60%. The process is self-controlled in relation to operational parameters like pH, biomass concentration, and activity. Since acidication is a faster process than hydrolysis, the result of hydrolytic pretreatment is the generation of VFA that reduces the pH in both the sludge bed and the digester efuent. The sludge bed pH is in the range from 5.5 to 7, which is lower than inuent and efuent pH. The HUSB efuent contained acetic acid in a range of concentrations that varied from 60 to 110 mg/l, and the efuent pH was generally 0.21.0 units lower than the inuent pH. Sludge held in HUSB reactors showed residual methanogenic activity ranging from 0.01 to 0.02 gCH4 -COD/gVSSd, indicating partial separation of anaerobic phases. A lower SRT may be reached by an additional purge, which in turn enhances phase separation through a lower biomass concentration and methanogenic activity. However, lower SRT also reduces the suspended solid hydrolysis and increases the surplus sludge generation. Previous research (Alvarez, 2004) demonstrated that inuent wastewater strength strongly inuences the overall efciency (percent TSS, COD, and BOD removal) and acidication efciency (VFA generation) of the HUSB reactor, while temperature only appreciably inuences the acidication efciency. The inuence of operational parameters such as HRT, SRT, and sludge concentration on the behaviour of the HUSB system is not well established (Alvarez, 2004). Further research on this subject is still necessary.

Fig. 2 Average efuent TSS concentration (mg/l) in the anaerobic system studied. Bars and whiskers represent average values and standard deviations, respectively. Number of data is shown at the bottom of the columns. To identity system, see Table 4.

5.3.2.

Single-step UASB systems

The laboratory UASB system, which treats domestic wastewater at 20 C and HRT of 16 h, reached COD and TSS removal efciencies of 76 and 85%, respectively. An important effect of HRT on the removal efciency was observed, since at the same temperature and 5 h of HRT, removal efciencies decreased to 53% of COD and 63% of TSS (experiment 4). In experiments 5 and 6, a pilot plant UASB was operated at 1011 h HRT and 1415 C. In experiment 5, this plant achieved TSS and COD removals above 75 and 54%, respectively. In experiment 6, these values decreased to 58% TSS removal and 40% COD removal. The inuent concentration explained this behaviour, since very dilute wastewater was used in experiment 6. In experiment 7, the pilot UASB reached a high level of TSS removal (8182%) but COD removal remained low (4749%). In the eld application (experiment 8), the full-scale UASB reached a TSS removal of 8296% and a COD removal of 5893%. Efuent VFA (mainly acetic acid) in single-step UASB systems working at low environment temperatures ranged from 0 to 80 mgCOD/l, while the average specic methanogenic activity of UASB sludge ranged from 0.02 to 0.05 gCH4 -COD/gVSSd.

Efuent pH was generally 0.10.3 units lower than the inuent pH. Surplus organic sludge generation ranged from 0 to 30% of inuent VSS, depending mainly on organic and hydraulic loading and SRT. For example, no generation of surplus sludge was found in experiments 6 and 8 (Table 4). In contrast, surplus sludge reached 20% for inuent VSS in experiment 5 and up to 31% in experiment 7. At temperatures of 20 C and particularly at temperatures lower than 15 C, single-step methanogenic process had some difculties caused by low hydrolysis rates of inuent suspended solids, which accumulated in the digesters displacing the active methanogenic biomass (Zeeman and Lettinga, 1999). Therefore, signicant amounts of volatile fatty acids remained in the digester efuent. For example, this occurred in experiment 7, working at a low HRT of 45 h, when about 75 mgVFA-COD/l were registered in the treated efuent. Thus, at a low temperature, a higher HRT must be applied in singlestep UASB systems, as experiments 5, 6, and 8 described (see Table 4).

5.3.3.

UASB-CMSS systems

The main aim of the CMSS digester, combined with the UASB, was to enhance the biodegradation of inuent solids retained in the UASB and to increase its specic methanogenic activity. The sludge drawn from the middle zone of the UASB entered the upper zone of the digester and then circulated from the bottom of the CMSS digester to the bottom of the UASB (Fig. 1). The CMSS digester temperature was set at optimum values ranging from 30 to 35 C, while the UASB operated at ambient temperature. The laboratory scale UASB-CMSS system (experiment 9, Table 4) reached COD and TSS removal levels of 76% and 86%, respectively, at a HRT of 6.2 h for the UASB, improving the results obtained in the single-step laboratory UASB (experiment 4). The UASB-CMSS pilot plant (experiment 10, Table 4) also had increased efciency compared to the single-step UASB, since it slightly increased the methanogenic activity of the sludge and reduced the excess sludge generation, which was

64

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467

Fig. 3 Percentile distribution of inuent and efuent TSS for each anaerobic conguration. Legend: (1) Single-step HUSB system, (2) Single-step UASB system, (3) UASB-CMSS system, and (4) Two-step HUSB-UASB and UASB-UASB systems. The numbers of data included were: (1) 282, (2) 128, (3) 41, and (4) 106.

only 7% of the inuent total COD (or 11% of inuent VSS). The VFA concentration in UASB efuent was reduced to 830 mgCOD/l. As indicated in Table 4, steady state efciency for TSS removal was high (6379%). Furthermore, results suggest that the relative volume of the CMSS digester could be considerably lower than the volume of the UASB, and a plug up ow sludge digester could be of interest (Alvarez et al., 2004).

5.4. Efuent TSS concentration of the surveyed anaerobic systems

Fig. 2 shows the average TSS concentration in treated efuent from each system studied. The TSS concentration of HUSBlab efuent was the highest (87 mg/l, see Exp. 1 in Fig. 2). In the HUSB pilot plant, the efuent TSS concentration was reduced to 50 and 63 mg/l depending on the operating conditions (Fig. 2). These differences in TSS efuent concentration were probably caused by the lower height of the lab scale HUSB, which reduced the distance between the top of the sludge bed and the efuent exit. Furthermore, the upow velocity (surface loading rate) is higher in the pilot-scale HUSB reactor (1.4 m/h compared to 0.1 m/h for the lab-scale unit) allowing better contact between the inuent and the sludge bed. In practice, the lab-scale digester needs efuent recirculation in order to homogenize the sludge bed and avoid bed compaction. The pilot-scale HUSB showed a good hydraulic ux distribution without the need for recirculation, as was outlined by experiments on hydraulic retention time distri bution (Alvarez et al., 2003). UASB systems, operating at higher HRT than HUSB systems, had average efuent TSS concentrations below 50 mg/l. In the case of UASB-CMSS systems, values for efuent TSS were similar to those of UASB. The lowest efuent TSS concentration was obtained with two-step systems, since the pilot plant and eld application systems had efuent TSS concentration below 35 mg/l. Fig. 3 shows the percentile distribution of the inuent and efuent TSS concentration for each anaerobic conguration, excluding laboratory scale experiments. Efuent TSS concentration was below 100 mg/l for 95% of the data for all congurations. In the case of the two-step systems, this concentration was 55 mg/l for 95% of the data. Mean efuent TSS concentrations ranged from 35 to 63 mg/l. Anaerobic digesters generated pretreated efuents with a TSS concentration that was 50% lower than that generated by classical pretreatment technologies used in combination with CW, as indicated above in Table 1 (mean efuent concentration of 123 mgTSS/l), or as reported by Vymazal (2005) for worldwide experiment (107 mgTSS/l). Therefore, taking into

5.3.4.

Two-step anaerobic treatment systems

At temperatures below 20 C, the two-step anaerobic system can improve the efciency of the single digester, due to the retention and hydrolysis of suspended organic matter in the rst step, allowing for an increase in the methanogenic activity of the anaerobic biomass held in the second step digester. The pilot-scale two-step HUSB-UASB system was operated at a HRT varying from 5.7 to 2.8 h for the rst step and from 13.9 to 6.5 h for the second step (experiment 11). For the overall system, TSS and COD removals ranged from 81 to 89% and 49 to 65%, respectively. Hydrolysis of inuent VSS reached 59.7%, and surplus sludge was 22% of the incoming VSS. Although COD removal efciency was inuenced by wastewater concentration and temperature, the efuent TSS concentration was mainly constant for inuent COD higher than 250 mg/l. In the second run (experiment 12, Table 4), the efciency was 8689% and 5965% for TSS and COD, respectively, which was slightly higher than in experiment 11 and was a consequence of a higher inuent concentration. Surplus sludge in this case reached 29% of the incoming VSS. The specic methanogenic activity was 0.010.02 gCH4 -COD/gVSSd for the sludge from the rst step and 0.050.06 gCH4 -COD/gVSSd for the sludge from the second step. The eld application of the two-step system also showed a very good efciency (experiment 13). The UASB-UASB system operated at a HRT of 24 h for each digester and a temperature of 718 C. The efciency of this low load system was 4565% and 7590% of COD and TSS, respectively (Table 4); and surplus sludge was not generated. Specic methanogenic activity was 0.01 and 0.02 gCH4 -COD/gVSSd for the sludge in the rst and second step UASB reactors, respectively.

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467

65

account these data, all these anaerobic digester congurations meet the general requirements for a municipal wastewater pretreatment capable of preventing clogging in a constructed wetland. The stability and reliability of these anaerobic digesters is indicated by their behaviour when they are faced with the wide range of inuent and operational conditions that were tested. Inuent COD varied from 34 to 2700 mg/l and inuent TSS from 19 to 2100 mg/l, while the operational temperature ranged from 5 to 21 C. Efuent quality, however, varied to a lesser extent, as indicated above for efuent TSS. COD removal efciency suffered from low inuent temperatures and organic loads, but values remained in the ranges indicated in Table 4. Pilot- and eld-scale digesters tolerated prolonged periods of temperatures below 13 C. However, prolonged periods of more than 1 month treating very dilute wastewater (inuent COD below 200 mg/l) clearly affected the efciency of single-step UASB, and also the stability of two-step HUSBUASB systems, when the biomass concentration became very low (Alvarez, 2004).

eters present in Eq. (1). Finally, wetland efuent must meet legal specications, which according to the EU is a BOD5 less than or equal to 25 mg/l. Information on BOD5 inuent concentration and removal efciency resulting from the anaerobic treatment of municipal wastewater is scarce in the literature. A general review of anaerobic digesters treating municipal wastewater (Alvarez et al., in preparation) indicated that UASB removes about 67% of inuent BOD5 . Limited data for single-step UASB and UASB-CMSS systems treating diluted (BOD5 about 200 mg/l) municipal wastewater at temperatures below 20 C show BOD5 removals ranging from 50 to 70% (Alvarez et al., 2004, 2006). In this case, the BOD5 entering the wetland decreases from 200 to 80 mg/l (60% reduction on average) when an UASB anaerobic pretreatment was applied. Therefore, the required wetland area will be reduced by 44%, as can be calculated using Eq. (1). More efcient anaerobic pretreatment systems could remove about 70% of BOD5 and provide a 60% reduction in wetland area. Even if BOD5 removal decreases to 46%, as may be the case when HUSB reactors are used as a municipal wastewater pretreatment, the required wetland area will be 30% less. Construction costs of CW are highly variable from place to place but in many cases may be similar to those of some conventional treatment technologies or may be higher when land costs are accounted for (Rousseau et al., 2004a; Puigagut et al., 2007). The requirement of a large amount of land is one of the limitations to widespread adoption of CW technology for wastewater treatment in both developed and developing countries, and the need for reducing investment costs through reducing the CW area has been proposed on several occasions (Badkoubi et al., 1998; Kivaisi, 2001; Gomez Cerezo et al., 2001; Green et al., 2006; El-Hamouri et al., 2007). The footprint of high-rate anaerobic digesters is very small, ranging from 0.005 to 0.02 m2 /p.e. for the systems included in Table 4. Thus, anaerobic digesters may be combined with CW in order to reduce the overall area below 1 m2 /p.e., as previously proposed (Barros and Soto, 2002; Green et al., 2006). Furthermore, construction costs of anaerobic digesters are lower than that of CW and operation costs are very low and are comparable to that of CW (Kivaisi, 2001; Hoffmann et al., 2002). In this way, the use of high-rate anaerobic digesters as a rst treatment step may be a better choice than using a high-rate vertical ow CW or a very high load horizontal ow CW that can suffer from surface ooding and clogging (Batchelor and Loots, 1997). An anaerobic system is preferable as a wetland pretreatment, compared to a primary decanter or a common septic tank, as it reduces surplus sludge generation, it removes SS and BOD5 more effectively, and it offers a good way to buffer the large uctuations of municipal wastewater from a small population. The type of anaerobic process, either a hydrolytic pretreatment or methanogenic digestion can also inuence the performance and efciency of CW post-treatment as the type of substrate changes. Advanced methanogenic digestion produces an efuent that is mainly recalcitrant for anaerobic processes in CW. Therefore, post-treatment CW could be designed with a lower depth in order to maximize aerobic conditions; or VF CW may be of great interest. In the case of an anaerobic hydrolytic pretreatment, as in the HUSB process, most of the volatile suspended solids and readily biodegrad-

6. Inuence of anaerobic pretreatment on constructed wetland area

Anaerobic pretreatment has two important consequences for the quality of inuent wastewater in a constructed wetland. The rst one is the high TSS removal and the maintenance of TSS concentration in the pretreated wastewater so that it is below 100 mg/l, as indicated above. A second consequence is the decrease in the inuent COD concentration to the wetland by an amount that varied from 30 to 90%, depending on the type of anaerobic digester used, wastewater characteristics, and operational conditions (Table 4). Horizontal ow constructed wetlands can be sized in order to meet a dened supercial COD load, for example 12 gCOD/m2 d (Vymazal, 2005). Therefore, generally the reduction in the wetland area required when an anaerobic pretreatment is introduced may range from 30 to 90%. However, a better method to measure constructed wetlands is one that takes into consideration the BOD5 removal kinetic, such as the rst order model (Rousseau et al., 2004b). In this case, assuming the background concentration of BOD is equal to zero, the constructed wetland area is calculated according to the following equation (Kadlec et al., 2000; Rousseau et al., 2004b): F kv E ln h BOD5 i BOD5 e

A=

(1)

where A is the wetland area (m2 ), F is the volumetric ow (m3 /d), h is the wetland depth (0.40.6 m), E is the gravel bed porosity (generally, 0.3), and kv is a rst order kinetic constant that depends on temperature (from 0.17 to 6.11 d1 , as reported by Kadlec and Knight (1996) and by Rousseau et al., 2004b). In this way, the wetland area is proportional to the logarithm of the quotient between the wetlands inuent BOD5 and efuent BOD5 . Anaerobic pretreatment greatly modies this quotient but it does not inuence the rest of the param-

66

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467

able matter present in raw wastewater are converted to acetic acid. Acetic acid may be converted in both anaerobic/anoxic conditions or in aerobic conditions aiding in the nitrogen and phosphorus removal process. Furthermore, biomass growth from acetic respiration in anaerobic conditions was lower than biomass growth from complex substrates (Gujer and Zehnder, 1983). Low growth will reduce solid accumulation in CW media and could prevent clogging phenomena. At the present time, no research has been reported on the inuence of the type of anaerobic pretreatment on the post-treatment CW operation; and there is a need for additional studies on this subject.

7.

Conclusions

One of the most signicant handicaps of constructed wetlands for urban wastewater treatment is gravel bed clogging after a few years of operation with poor waste pretreatment or high organic loading rates. Another disadvantage of constructed wetlands is that a large supercial area is required. Both handicaps can be minimised with an appropriate anaerobic pretreatment. Anaerobic plants may be operated either as hydrolytic or methanogenic digesters. Hydrolytic digesters, at an HRT of 35 h, remove 6585% of TSS and 3555% of COD, showing a large amount of hydrolysis and acidication of inuent SS. Methanogenic digesters, operating at a HRT of 811 h, remove 6090% of TSS and 4075% of COD. A two-step system (hydrolytic and methanogenic digesters in series) can remove up to 8090% of TSS and 5065% of COD. These results correspond to applications carried out in temperate climates where wastewater temperature ranges from 13 to 20 C, or in some cases from 5 to 20 C. The average and 95th percentile TSS concentrations of anaerobically treated wastewater were below 60 and 100 mg/l, respectively, for all congurations. Therefore, anaerobic pretreatment of sewage could help prevent media clogging in constructed wetlands. Furthermore, depending on the amount of organic matter removed, anaerobic pretreatment can provide a reduction of 3060% of the wetland area.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by project CTM2005-06457-C0502/TECNO from the Ministery of Education and Science of Spain.

references

Alvarez, J.A., Zapico, C.A., Gomez, M., Presas, J., Soto, M., 2003. Anaerobic hydrolysis of a municipal wastewater in a pilot-scale digester. Water Sci. Technol. 47 (12), 223230. Alvarez, J.A., Armstrong, E., Gomez, M., Presas, J., Soto, M., 2004. Performance of an UASB-Digester system treating domestic wastewater. Environ. Technol. 25, 11891199. Alvarez, J.A., 2004. Tratamiento anaerobio de aguas residuales urbanas en planta piloto. PhD Thesis. Department of Physical Chemistry and Chemical Engineering I, University of A Coruna, Spain.

Alvarez, J.A., Ruz, I., Gomez, M., Presas, J., Soto, M., 2006. Start-up alternatives and performance of an UASB pilot plant treating diluted municipal wastewater at low temperature. Bioresour. Technol. 97, 16401649. Alvarez, J.A., Armstrong, E., Gomez, M., Soto M., 2007. Anaerobic treatment of low-strength municipal wastewater by a two-stage piloto plant under psychrophilic conditions. Biores. Technol., doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2008.01.013, in press. Alvarez, J.A., Ruz, I., Soto, M. Anaerobic treatment of municipal wastewater: a review. Badkoubi, A., Ganjidoust, H., Ghaderi, A., Rajabi, A., 1998. Performance of a subsurface constructed wetland in Iran. Water Sci. Technol. 38 (1), 345350. Barros, P., Soto, M., 2002. Anaerobic systems for domestic wastewater treatment in rural areas. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Small Wastewater Technologies and Mangement for the Mediterranean Area, Seville, Spain, March 2022. Barros, P., Soto, M., 2004. Depuracion natural avanzada en nucleos rurais. In: Procceedings of the II Congreso Internacional de Ingeniera Civil, Territorio y Medio Ambiente, 16111622, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, September 2224. Barros, P., Ruz, I., Soto, M., 2006. Performance of an anaerobic digester-wetland system for a small community. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Wetlands Systems for Water Pollution Control, Lisboa, Portugal, September 2329. Batchelor, A., Loots, P., 1997. A critical evaluation of a pilot scale subsurface ow wetland: 10 years after commissioning. Water Sci. Technol. 35, 337343. Brix, H., Arias, C.A., 2005. The use of vertical ow constructed wetlands for on-site treatment of domestic wastewater: new Danish guidelines. Ecol. Eng. 25, 491500. Caselles-Osorio, A., Garca, J., 2006. Performance of experimental horizontal subsurface ow constructed wetlands fed with dissolved or particulate organic matter. Water Res. 40, 36033611. Caselles-Osorio, A., Garcia, J., 2007. Effect of physico-chemical pretreatment on the removal efciency of horizontal subsurface-ow constructed wetlands. Environ. Pollut. 146, 5563. Caselles-Osorio, A., Puigagut, J., Segu, E., Vaello, N., Granes, F., Garcia, D., Garcia, J., 2007. Solids accumulation in six full-scale subsurface ow constructed wetlands. Water Res. 41 (6), 13881398. Chazarenc, F., Merlin, G., 2005. Inuence of surface layer on hydrology and biology of gravel bed vertical ow constructed wetlands. Water Sci. Technol. 51 (9), 9197. Da Motta Marques, D.M.L., Leite, G.R., Giovannini, S.G.T., 2001. Performance of two macrophyte species in experimental wetlands receiving variable loads of anaerobically treated municipal wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 44 (1112), 311316. Dahab, M.F., Surampalli, R.Y., 2001. Subsurface-ow constructed wetlands treatment in the plains: ve years of experience. Water Sci. Technol. 44 (11), 375380. El-Hamouri, B., Nazih, J., Lahjouj, J., 2007. Subsurface-horizontal ow constructed wetland for sewage treatment under Moroccan climate conditions. Desalination 215, 153158. El-Khateeb, M.A., El-Gohary, F.A., 2003. Combining UASB technology and constructed wetland for domestic wastewater reclamation and reuse. Water Sci. Technol. 3 (4), 201208. Foresti, E., 2002. Anaerobic treatment of domestic sewage: established technologies and perspectives. Water Sci. Technol. 45 (10), 181186. Foresti, E., Zaiat, M., Vallero, M., 2006. Anaerobic process as the core technology for sustainable domestic wastewater treatment: consolidated applications, new trends, perspectives and challenges. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 5, 319.

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467

67

Goncalves, R.F., Charlier, A.C., Sammut, F., 1994. Primary fermentation of soluble and particulate organic matter for wastewater treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 30 (6), 5362. Gomez Cerezo, R., Suarez, M.L., Vidal-Abarca, M.R., 2001. The performance of a multi-stage system of constructed wetlands for urban wastewater treatment in a semiarid region of SE Spain. Ecol. Eng. 16, 501517. Green, M., Shaul, N., Beliavski, M., Sabbah, I., Ghattas, B., Tarre, S., 2006. Minimizing land requirement and evaporation in small wastewater treatment systems. Ecol. Eng. 26, 266271. Gujer, W., Zehnder, A.J., 1983. Conversion processes in anaerobic digestion. Water Sci. Technol. 15, 127. Henze, H., Harremoes, P., Jansens, J., Arvin, E., 1995. Wastewater Treatment. Springer-Verlag, New York. Hoffmann, H., Platzer, C., Heppeler, D., Barjenbrunch, M., Tranckner, J., Belli, P., 2002. Combination of anaerobic treatment and nutrient removal of wastewater in Brazil. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Water World Congress, April, Melbourne, Australia, April 912. Kadlec, R.H., Knight, R.L., Vymazal, J., Brix, H., Cooper, P., Haberl, R., 2000. Constructed Wetlands for Pollution Control: Processes, Performance, Design and Operation, IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control, Scientic and Technical Report 8, IWA Publishing, London, U.K. Kadlec, R.H., Knight, R.L., 1996. Treatment Wetlands. Lewis Publ. USA, Boca Raton, FL. Kaseva, M.E., 2004. Performance of a sub-surface ow constructed wetland in polish pre-treated wastewatera tropical case study. Water Res. 38, 681687. Kivaisi, A.K., 2001. The potential for constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and reuse in developing countries: a review. Ecol. Eng. 16, 545560. Langergraber, G., Haberl, R., Laber, J., Pressi, A., 2003. Evaluation of substrate clogging processes in vertical ow constructed wetlands. Water Sci. Technol. 48 (5), 2534. Lens, P., Zeeman, G., Lettinga, G., 2001. Decentralised Sanitation and Reuse: Concepts, Systems and Implementation. IWA Publishing, London, UK. Lettinga, G., de Man, A., Van der Last, A.R.M., Wiegant, W., Van Knippenberg, K., Frijns, J., Van Buuren, J.C.L., 1993. Anaerobic treatment of domestic sewage and wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 27 (9), 6773. Lettinga, G., 2001. Digestion and degradation, air for life. Water Sci. Technol. 44 (8), 157176. Ligero, P., Vega, A., Soto, M., 2001a. Pre-treatment of urban wastewaters in a hydrolytic up ow digester. Water SA 27 (3), 16. Ligero, P., Vega, A., Soto, M., 2001b. Inuence of HRT (hydraulic retention time) and SRT (solid retention time) on the hydrolytic pre-treatment of urban wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 44 (4), 714. Masi, F., Martinuzzi, N., Bresciani, R., Giovannelli, L., Conte, G., 2006. Tolerance to hydraulic and organic load uctuations in constructed wetlands. In: Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Wetlands Systems for Water Pollution Control, Lisboa, Portugal, September 2329. Mbuligwe, S.E., 2004. Comparative effectiveness of engineered wetland systems in the treatment of anaerobically pre-treated domestic wastewater. Ecol. Eng. 23, 269284. Metcalf & Eddy. 2003. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. fourth ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston, USA. Neralla, S., Weaver, R.W., Lesikar, B.J., Persyn, R.A., 2000. Improvement of domestic wastewater quality by subsurface ow constructed wetlands. Bioresour. Technol. 75, 1925.

Philippi, L.R., Da Costa, R.H.R., Sezerino, P.H., 1999. Domestic efuent treatment through integrated system of septic tank and root zone. Water Sci. Technol. 40, 125131. Puigagut, J., Villasenor, J., Salas, J.J., Becares, E., Garcia, J., 2007. Subsurface-ow constructed wetlands in Spain for the sanitation of small communities: a comparative study. Ecol. Eng. 30, 312319. Rousseau, D.P.L., Vanrolleghem, P.A., Pauw, N.D., 2004a. Constructed wetlands in Flanders: a performance analysis. Ecol. Eng. 23, 151163. Rousseau, D.P.L., Vanrolleghem, P.A., Pauw, N.D., 2004b. Model-based design of horizontal subsurface ow constructed treatment wetlands: a review. Water Res. 38, 14841493. Ruz, I., Soto, M., Veiga, M.C., Ligero, P., Vega, A., Blazquez, R., 1998. Performance of and biomass characterization in a UASB reactor treating domestic wastewater at ambient temperature. Water SA 24 (3), 215221. Ruz, I., Alvarez, J.A., Daz, M.A., Grana, M., Soto, M., 2006. Municipal wastewater treatment in an anaerobic digester-constructed wetland system. In: Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Wetlands Systems for Water Pollution Control, Lisboa, Portugal, September 2329. Ruz, I., Blazquez, R., Soto, M., 2007. Characteristics and anaerobic treatability of municipal and industrial estate wastewaters. Environ. Technol. 28, 10631072. Sousa, J.T., Van Haandel, A.C., Guimaraes, A.A., 2001. Post-treatment of anaerobic efuents in constructed wetland systems. Water Sci. Technol. 44 (4), 213219. Sousa, J.T., Van Haandel, A., Lima, E.P.C., Guimaraes, A.V.A., 2003. Performance of constructed wetland systems treating anaerobic efuents. Water Sci. Technol. 48 (6), 295299. Sperling, von M., 1996. Comparison among the most frequently used systems for wastewater treatment in developing countries. Water Sci. Technol. 33 (3), 5972. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1995. 19th ed. American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation, Washington, DC, USA. USEPA, 2000. Constructed Wetland Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. US.EPA 625/R99/010, Cincinnati, OH, USA. Van Haandel, A., Kato, M.T., Cavalcanti, P.F.F., Florencio, L., 2006. Anaerobic design concepts for the treatment of domestic wastewater. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 5, 2138. Vymazal, J., Brix, H., Cooper, P.F., Green, M.B., Haberl, R., 1998. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in Europe. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands. Vymazal, J., 2002. The use of sub-surface constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in the Czech Republic: 10 years experience. Ecol. Eng. 18, 633646. Vymazal, J., 2005. Horizontal sub-surface ow and hybrid constructed wetlands systems for wastewater treatment. Ecol. Eng. 25, 478490. Wang, K., 1994. Integrated anaerobic and aerobic treatment of sewage. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Biotechnology, University of Wageningen, The Netherlands. Winter, K.J., Goetz, D., 2003. The impact of sewage composition on the soil clogging phenomena of vertical ow constructed wetlands. Water Sci. Technol. 48 (5), 914. Zeeman, G., Lettinga, G., 1999. The role of anaerobic digestion of domestic sewage in closing the water and nutrient cycle at community level. Water Sci. Technol. 39 (5), 187194. Zhao, Y.Q., Sun, G., Allen, S.J., 2004. Anti-sized reed bed system for animal wastewater treatment: a comparative study. Water Res. 38, 29072917.